Thoughts on PE Strategy / Portfolio roles?
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
+41 | Boomerang from PE back to IB? | 6 | 2d | |
+40 | Trading PE Secondaries? | 27 | 3d | |
+34 | Best Tech PE Deals Ever? | 29 | 1d | |
+31 | Joining an exciting new Software Rollup over PE/ Growth Equity? | 24 | 1d | |
+20 | Autism in PE | 4 | 3d | |
+20 | Advice Needed: Starting Career at Smaller PE Firm | 6 | 2d | |
+20 | F500 Corp Dev (Manager), Or PE Portco Corp Dev (Mid-Level) | 5 | 7h | |
+19 | Funds with the best culture | 20 | 7h | |
+19 | PE BD/IR | 7 | 4d | |
+18 | PE offer — Post reference check waiting too long | 6 | 1d |
Career Resources
following
I'm interested in this topic as well. I have found less enjoyment out of deal-making than with helping portfolio companies.
As to your list:
Sounds like a fairly interesting role. I would want to clarify some of the points I made above.
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
I would diligence the number of partners/MDs that came from investing vs operating paths. This would give you a better sense of what the firm values.
Generally, it is always easier to invest in businesses that can take advantage of high growth markets that influence EV/EBITDA multiple uplift at exit and require just enough M&A to convince the next buyer there is white space/competitors to enter/acquire. This type of investment focus only needs operators to capture incremental upside vs step changes in value and will thus discount an operator’s value vs the investment professional.
On the other hand, if the firm invests in businesses that might have a less clear path for revenue growth or cost reduction, the firm will likely place more value on in-house operating professionals to help with strategy or tactical improvement projects. This obviously takes more work over the investment period but can result in a large EBITDA or multiple uplift to capture an outsized return.
These situations are obviously black and white and there are many shades of gray in the middle.
To be completely clear, would this role sit within the PE fund or within a portco? There are both black&white/opaque pros and cons which would come with either scenario but it's important for me to understand before I opine
Unless you are joining a strong house branded for its operating partner expertise (like GIP), its hard to move back to an IP role. Since your main goal is IP eventually, I wouldn’t be too keen about anchoring this path as the breaking point.
Even then, you are being compared and benchmarked with consultants and people with corporate experience in this field, which candidly speaking do have more edge than IBD folks.
Remember, as IBD guy, you are best at equity story, modeling, and capital management - rather than coming in with the 100 operational KPIs and super meticulous operational improvement programs with fancy acronyms that no1 remembers.
Similique cum ratione ducimus. Reiciendis error officiis quo exercitationem odit dolor accusamus. Voluptatem debitis nisi assumenda sint.
Quibusdam amet ea in consequatur. Et architecto iure qui blanditiis qui commodi. Quis sapiente aut autem alias. Voluptatem id possimus amet quae. Deleniti eos non et.
Qui occaecati rerum dolore laudantium impedit ut commodi. Incidunt delectus nostrum velit. Repellendus mollitia modi consequatur et omnis aliquam. Non est reprehenderit aliquam asperiores nam dolore nemo.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...